I was asked to participate in my first Jury under the new rules.

[redstatebluegirl]

I read the post and declined to participate, I could not make a decision. Now, that has never been something hard for me. The post was pretty strong language (not nasty, strong) my first impulse was to hide it, then I felt like I couldn't make a decision.

Has that happened to anyone else?

[leftstreet]

1. Why did the new rules make you hesitate?

[redstatebluegirl]

28. I guess it is the idea that someone could be silenced for 90 days.

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2013, 10:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree that we need to police personal attacks and trolls but this one was hard to determine and I did not want to be the one to put someone off the board for that long. There are people here who are pretty nasty and personal, but I try to not judge them giving them the benefit of the doubt.

With that said if a post is racist, sexist or going after a group of people there will be no hesitation to hide it.

[yesphan]

2. Yes.

On more than one occasion I've had to rethink an initial decision.
I have not declined yet but I can see why someone may.

[snooper2]

3. meta is alive!

[KatyMan]

4. I very very rarely hide posts

when I'm on a jury, only very blatant ones (as in severe name calling, etc). But regardless of the consequences of the rules, a post that needs to be hidden needs to be hidden.

[WCGreen]

9. Personal attacks are where I draw the line...

Anything else usually goes or me.

[el_bryanto]

10. This is how I feel

I generally don't want to silence discussion, even if it's passionate or even hurtful discussion - but when it goes to outright attacks or broadbrush smears (or is clearly RW talking points) than i feel i have to.

Bryant

[quinnox]

5. I will hide if the post is rude or obnoxious enough

I will continue to judge the posts the same way.

[KG]

6. i long ago opted out of serving...

[Control-Z]

7. It's happened to me.

Two, maybe three, times since the start of the jury system.

[rrneck]

8. I've been on two or three...

And there is no difference for me.

[Ohio Joe]

11. Nope

Posts I am asked to review are either ok to me or not and I vote accordingly.

[HappyMe]

12. I'm either going to hide or leave.

The new rules haven't changed the way I look at the post.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. unless you are abusive in your statements during your jury decisions

how do the new rules really change anything?

[MineralMan]

14. I believe the only concern is with comments by jurors,

not in assessing the alert. Attacking people in alerts or in juror comments is what the Admins are concerned about. As for myself, I'll be doing what I have always done. If a post contains a personal attack on another DUer, I will vote to hide that post every time. Most of the juries I have served on (over 300) have been about personal attacks, and those are never within the community standards of DU.

The rest I have voted to hide have been either commercial spam or right-wing statements.

Anything other than those, I simply vote to leave. I do not consider who wrote the post, ever, only the content.

[Jenoch]

19. I was recently called naive in a very condescending manner and I

replied by calling the person an idiot. My post was hidden, as it should have been, but shouldn't the original post to which I replied also have been hidden?

I guess instead of replying to such a post I should alert on it, but I have yet to alert on a single post.

[MineralMan]

21. Being called naive is not as insulting as being called an idiot.

Both are insults, but one is worse than the other. Neither should be used, IMO, but calling someone naive will probably not cause a post to be hidden. Calling someone an idiot will almost always lead to a hidden post, in my experience.

As for alerting, my own policy is never to alert on any post containing an insult or attack directed at me. If someone else alerts, that's fine, but I'm a big boy, and can handle being insulted or personally attacked. However, I do alert when attacks or insults are directed at others. That's just how I do things, though, and is not a recommendation about how others should act.

Anyhow, it's always best not to engage in personal insults or attacks. If you avoid attacking or insulting others and don't take positions that people consider to be right-wing in nature, you won't have your posts hidden. It's that simple. Juries often give a lot of leeway, though, so, as Skinner once said, "You take your chances."

[CherokeeDem]

15. Making decisions is difficult....

I only hide posts when a personal attack is being made, rarely do I hide a post when the alerter claims the person alerted is a troll or a 'serial baiter.' In most cases, there is no way for me or any one to be absolutely certain of that fact. I rarely vote to hide a post from an alerter who doesn't take the time or the decency to state the reason they alerted. Only when a very obvious insult was made will I hide without explanation from the alerter.

I try to be fair but I get exasperated when the alerts are frivolous, as so many of them are.

[LittleBlue]

16. I don't usually hide posts

If the person looks like they're making an argument on good faith.

[msongs]

17. jury system requires a vote before actual complaint can be seen. very peculiar system nt

[hfojvt]

18. not really

it first asks you to make your own judgement, without being swayed or influenced by somebody else's judgement.

So you might look at a post and think

1) This post is racist
or
2) What is the problem with this post?

Whereas if you first read the opinion "this post is racist" when you look at the post you might more easily see racism.

Then having seen somebody else's opinion that a post is objectionable, you can evaluate it again, and make one of two conclusions

1) aha, they are right, I do see the racism now
or
2) no, I think they are misreading that.
or
3) it could go either way

[Jamastiene]

25. Thank you for that explanation.

It makes perfect sense now. I always wondered why it was set up that way.

One thing I wish they would implement is a way to look at the post in question and the subthread where the post is made without having to click away from jury service. Sometimes, unless you can see the context of the conversation, it is hard to decide if a post should be hidden or not.

[hfojvt]

29. I almost always look at the context

sometimes bouncing around a lot checking links and trying to get back to the beginning. I thought there was usually an easy way to get back - like a "click here to complete your jury service" at least I think I remember it that way. It may have been more than a week since I did jury duty.

[ellie]

20. I opted out of serving on juries

It was too much drama for me.

[KitSileya]

22. I have luckily not had that experience before.

In some cases I have had to use a bit more time, in order to read the entire exchange. For example, unlike many of the posters on this thread, I hide not only posts that are personal attacks, but also sexist and bigoted posts as well. Sometimes posts that may seem sexist/bigoted on the face of it, may not really be sexist or bigoted, because it is a member of the minority group in question who is using the language to make a point against sexism/bigotry. In those cases, they should not have their post hidden. My one and only hidden post was a post where I posted a sexism bingo card that contained a slur - as in lets cross off when a misogynist calls a female poster a b!&%h. A jury decided to hide my post, but not the several sexist posts in the thread. I don't want to be that kind of juror.

[adirondacker]

23. Yup. Usually involves some of my favorite posters, but not always. lines are blurred often. nt

[ananda]

24. My problem is that ...

... I can't deny free speech.

So I don't do juries.

[Cleita]

26. Yes and when in doubt I vote to leave it and sometimes

add an explanation. Often the alerts turn out to be vendetta alerts from an alerter who seems to be trying to get a poster PPR'd and I refuse to participate.

[Rex]

27. I've backed out of quite a few juries.

nt.